Different AI difficulties you can set for each player would also be nice. And more game modes need to be included. Having to conquer every neutral territory after you defeated your opponents is just boring.

Another thing: Nukes are way too powerful and too cheap. A way to hinder players from just buying 20 nukes and destroying half of the map would be for example specialized anti-nuke defenses. Nukes should be made more expensive. Maybe a new building type could be included, a silo that can load up and fire nukes that have been produced in the same territory so that you can't fire all nukes at once. And mobile launchers and subs should be able to load up nukes, too. In the present version they seem to have infinite nuclear ammo and you just can bomb your opponent every turn with them. Having to load up ammo would reduce their power. Another thing: Why can nukes only be fired at targets on the same continent (At least it seems so)? You can't bombard sea territories and other continents with nukes in the present version which is a bit unrealistic.

Ha! Right on the money. My last "manifesto" included a whooole section on nukes. All very theoretical, of course, since the AI likes to build 'em, but won't use 'em. Have to think what the gameboard would be like with five or six half-decent AI's that have twitchy fingers on The Button. Ugly. Very ugly. Could easily turn into a nuke-all slugfest.

I pushed for the ability to move nukes onto Ballistic Subs and Mobile Launchers (... which is the whole point of each platform ...), the ability to bombard sea spaces, and to "shoot over" water and whang opposing continents. (INTERcontinental vs. INTRAcontinental). Pushed for a six-space range on silo'd nukes, too. As a counter, I suggested cruisers and AA Emplacements having a chance to intercept inbound missiles. The more you've got, the better the odds, up to a 60% cap. (So a bunch of cheap AAs don't instantly confer immunity from nukes.) I also suggested that the anti-missile units 'project' their coverage to neighboring turf, or at least to neighboring turf if the missile flight path arcs over their location near the point of impact.

My fav, though, was suggesting that using nukes carried a level of opprobrium in the 'world community'. Basically, anyone initiating a first strike is far more likely to be nuked in turn by other players (AI), without warning. And that using something extra heinous, like neutron bombs, would pretty much guarantee that other parties would go out of their way to retaliate with first-strike nukes. (Naturally - the victim of a first-strike can retaliate without incurring worldwide opprobrium - they get a pass.) This way, using nukes becomes a lot more "expensive", because anyone who launches a nuke attack is going to take a lot of radioactive flack from everyone else.

Well, at least in a game that has a lot of AIs. In a more "human" world, you might simply reduce AA defense costs for the victimized party. So if Joe nukes Bob, Bob gets an automatic 25% reduction to anti-missile defense costs. Joe gets squat, so he has an incentive NOT to nuke ... unless doing so would be totally cool and wipe out that massive 'Death Fleet' Bob's got hovering way out yonder.

Yeah, in the present state of the game you can just nuke half of a continent and the AI doesn't really react to that. They should concentrate their attacks on players nuking them instead of fighting with some other AI enemies. You can effortlessly take half of a continent using nukes and the AI doesn't really react. I saw AI players building nukes but they never used them (I could just take them with my troops and use them myself!). The AI seriously needs to be made more agressive and capable of making rational decisions instead of wasting its troops on other enemies instead all going against the strongest player.

You know, speaking of AI behavior, I'm wondering if you may have experienced something I noticed in every game scenario I ran: that each AI player only makes ONE attack per game turn.

I think I've seen a COUPLE exceptions to this "rule", but if so, they're rare enough for me to doubt my own memory. The AI might move other units about the board, but in strict terms of "attacking", it will only do so once per turn.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think this self-imposed nerf is largely what keeps the AI's in check from a strategic perspective. They always seem to expand decently enough in the early stages of the game, but once they come into contact with someone else, both team grind to a halt and go "WW1" on each other. It might also explain why they seem to leave neutral territories alone when major hostilities commence.

Yes, I think that's true. The AI does move various troops in each turn, but only makes one attack, I think. The AI still needs major rework. The game is far too easy now. I've never lost against the AI so far.

The AI of this game seems severly unfinished and it also needs more polish in other areas. I'm starting to regret I've bought it. Finished another far too easy scenario yesterday. I think I won't recommend it to other people in its present state. But it could be really great if Malfador spent some time improving it. Yes ScottWAR, I think mods also can't improve the game until the AI is improved. Rebalancing isn't really useful when the AI simply can't make any sensible strategic decisions. Hehe, another bug I noticed, AI players ALWAYS build 1 Destroyer, 1 sub and 1 cruiser, and never carriers or stuff like that. And you can always easily crush their fleets because they simply don't expand them!